4 ms·

By way of analogy, the government might make a law that allows, in secondary legislation, the setting of a driving speed limit. These activists are claiming th

By way of analogy, the government might make a law that allows, in secondary legislation, the setting of a driving speed limit. These activists are claiming that the government is secretly intending the speed limit to be 1mph. The government are trying to ban driving!! The activists are demanding the enabling legislation be amended so that the speed limit, when set, must be no lower than Xmph. But all this does is force all regulation to be done in primary legislation. The debate about what the regulations should be is separate to there being a regulatory system at all. It is right that the primary legislation just lays out in broad terms that the regulations must be "reasonable" and "proportionate" etc because it's only real purpose is to allow those regulations to be challenged in court in future.

b800h 3y ago
That's not my understanding of the legislation. I see no exemptions from the child access provisions. The criterion is "any site with a significant number of child users" or where additionally OFCOM decides to intervene, and where significant is not defined. And of course you seem to have to perform an audit to determine how many child users you have in order to be exempted. Again, this is my reading of the very complex bill. The article from Taylor Wessing seems to concur though.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  But all the provisions service providers are expected to implement have a "reasonable" or "proportionate" qualifier, no? And the actual, practical meaning of these responsibilities will be defined in a yet-to-be-published Code of Practice...?
CamperBob2 3y ago
Like unreasonably low speed limits, the purpose of legislation like this isn't to be enforceable against everyone. It's to be enforceable against anyone.
LocalH 3y ago
I'd like to offer a different analogy. Encryption in communication is, to me, akin to the locks on the doors of your residence, on safes or other secure containers. It protects your privacy from prying eyes who want to snoop on what others are doing. The activists are claiming that the government wishes to require that all locks be unlockable by one of a range of secret "master" keys, so that they can ensure you're not privately doing anything illegal. Not only that, but the government also wishes to institute a compliance regimen to ensure that all locks are indeed actually openable by these master keys. Given the historic behavior of all governments, I don't trust them not to claim the most powerful interpretation of the laws and regulations that are instituted. Maybe not at first, but it will happen, because it has always happened this way.
- cjs_ac 3y ago
  What the government actually wants is for service providers (as in, social media companies, not ISPs) to monitor everything happening on their service to make sure that no one is coming to any serious harm. How providers do that is up to them. The government doesn't care about the technology; it's all about corporate processes, and they're going to regulate it one corporation at a time. If you're not important to be asked to appear before a House of Commons Committee, you're not going to come to Ofcom's attention.
  - janoc 3y ago
    > How providers do that is up to them. Sure. You are either demanding the impossible - or effectively banning encryption use because there is no other way how to comply with what the law demands, despite it ostensibly not banning anything. So that's rather disingenuous argument, IMO. The problem is that the governments not only don't care about technology, they don't understand it either. And tend to imagine and demand things that are about as realistic as a square circle - but it is a law, we don't care how you do it, it is your problem!
    - cjs_ac 3y ago
      There's a subtle but crucial difference. Service providers are free to offer end-to-end encrypted chat, but have to take responsibility for anything that's transmitted through that service. This means that services like Signal and WhatsApp will have to leave the UK, but I'm free to run my own service for just myself, my friends and my family. I would prefer the bill not to be enacted, but I can live with it.

b800h 3y ago

That's not my understanding of the legislation. I see no exemptions from the child access provisions. The criterion is "any site with a significant number of child users" or where additionally OFCOM decides to intervene, and where significant is not defined. And of course you seem to have to perform an audit to determine how many child users you have in order to be exempted. Again, this is my reading of the very complex bill. The article from Taylor Wessing seems to concur though.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
But all the provisions service providers are expected to implement have a "reasonable" or "proportionate" qualifier, no? And the actual, practical meaning of these responsibilities will be defined in a yet-to-be-published Code of Practice...?

CamperBob2 3y ago

Like unreasonably low speed limits, the purpose of legislation like this isn't to be enforceable against everyone. It's to be enforceable against anyone.

LocalH 3y ago

I'd like to offer a different analogy. Encryption in communication is, to me, akin to the locks on the doors of your residence, on safes or other secure containers. It protects your privacy from prying eyes who want to snoop on what others are doing. The activists are claiming that the government wishes to require that all locks be unlockable by one of a range of secret "master" keys, so that they can ensure you're not privately doing anything illegal. Not only that, but the government also wishes to institute a compliance regimen to ensure that all locks are indeed actually openable by these master keys. Given the historic behavior of all governments, I don't trust them not to claim the most powerful interpretation of the laws and regulations that are instituted. Maybe not at first, but it will happen, because it has always happened this way.

cjs_ac 3y ago
What the government actually wants is for service providers (as in, social media companies, not ISPs) to monitor everything happening on their service to make sure that no one is coming to any serious harm. How providers do that is up to them. The government doesn't care about the technology; it's all about corporate processes, and they're going to regulate it one corporation at a time. If you're not important to be asked to appear before a House of Commons Committee, you're not going to come to Ofcom's attention.
- janoc 3y ago
  > How providers do that is up to them. Sure. You are either demanding the impossible - or effectively banning encryption use because there is no other way how to comply with what the law demands, despite it ostensibly not banning anything. So that's rather disingenuous argument, IMO. The problem is that the governments not only don't care about technology, they don't understand it either. And tend to imagine and demand things that are about as realistic as a square circle - but it is a law, we don't care how you do it, it is your problem!
  - cjs_ac 3y ago
    There's a subtle but crucial difference. Service providers are free to offer end-to-end encrypted chat, but have to take responsibility for anything that's transmitted through that service. This means that services like Signal and WhatsApp will have to leave the UK, but I'm free to run my own service for just myself, my friends and my family. I would prefer the bill not to be enacted, but I can live with it.